Misconceptions about Protestants

[Tyndale]

all the Reformers managed was the splintering of Western Christendom into countless tiny pieces.

The Reformers did a wonderfull job in soterology. If it wasn't for the reformers you'd still be lining the pockets of Priests to get into heaven.

 

[razeontherock]

The Reformers did a wonderfull job in soterology. If it wasn't for the reformers you'd still be lining the pockets of Priests to get into heaven.

Actually did EO ever experience that problem? Have we just uncovered a misconception by Pr's?

 

[razeontherock]

The beauty in recognizing the O.T. breastplate, the tabernacle and the priests, as being fulfilled in US,

Beautiful it is! And I'm not sure my thread really makes it clear it IS fulfilled in us - in Christ? But I think the needful thing, and the simple thing, is it helps us understand Scripture. In this case, Eph 6 Paul certainly understood all that, and had it in mind when he wrote it And just like Jesus expected His audience to know the OT, so did Paul.

Anyway I think this little diversion would also clear up some misconceptions about Pr's, even though the typical "they ignore the OT" hasn't been raised here. That's actually one I HAVE encountered within Pr circles Dumbfounds me every time I hear a believer say it.

 

[razeontherock]

So you do not believe in a universe according to Christ? You do not hold to beliefs and practices according to Christ, and you do not consider yourself one with those who believe in Christ? That is what you are saying, you realize this, right?

Repeating your own misconception, in a thread designed to remove misconceptions. That would be, as they say, bad form.

The obvious need here is to bridge the communication breakdown ... you're either willing to participate in that process or you're not. Back to that thread I was prompted to start due to my conversation with Jack the Catholic before Christmas, "religion" would most definitely be on the list of words to define from both sides of the aisle. And since neither will budge, we'd have to come up with all new terms Your definition will be "religion," while ours will be "vain traditions of men."

 

[razeontherock]

I like how you claim to be religious in the first half of that post, then start calling religion a bad thing.

You didn't even read the definition of "religion" when I posted it earlier, did you?

We've already covered this misconception about Pr's, that we're about to accept your terms and/or their definitions.

We're not

Please pay attention, or we'll be forced to keep you after class

 

[Tyndale]

Actually did EO ever experience that problem? Have we just uncovered a misconception by Pr's?

The EO were dabbling in indulgences too

Indulgences in the history of the Greek Church / Ïðàâîñëàâèå.Ru

"In the 16th—18th centuries the Greek Church, even though limited in its contacts with the outer world to the borders of the Ottoman Empire, came under a great influence of Western Christianity—greater than did the Russian Church. Here Catholic propaganda worked more effectively, especially with the foundation in 1622 of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda of the Faith, for both Greek scholars and theologians had increasing contacts with the West and most of them studied there. These and other factors led to the Greek Church in great part undergoing a Western metamorphosis, according to the expression of Father George Florowsky.

One of the manifestations of such a metamorphosis was the introduction of the sale of Christian indulgences into the practice of the Greek Church"

 

[razeontherock]

Come now, attempting to turn "religion" into a negative buzzword is becoming somewhat tedious.

Your pretense that being religious is somehow a positive thing is both odious and tedious. You could start your own thread for that ...

 

[razeontherock]

Woah what? What is "I Baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which IS the Name of Jesus," supposed to mean?

Not real good with context, are ya?

Did you actually read the rest of the post?

Why yes I did. And I summarized it to cut to the chase. If you really can't respond, just admit your defeat.

Huh? Since when is the definition of "heresy", "some historic error, resolved within the Church before AD 600"? What happened in AD 600 that distinguished errors before then heresy and errors after then unimportant?

Hey you're the history major, not me. I'm pretty sure any reasonable and decent application for the word "heresy" was long concluded well before 600 AD. I just rounded up The same errors refuted by that time as "heresy" that surface today, could be referred to along those lines in civil and loving fashion. Trying to do that for anything that's come up since then? Simply NOT POSSIBLE. When you do, you conjure up the image of a crazed lunatic that would just SO love to go on a spree of torture, maiming and killing.

Let's not go there, ok? Apparently another misconception RC's have about Pr's is when we totally mopped the floor with y'all, that it was either all fun and games, or we were just as murderous. The fact is, we were put on the defensive. I really don't see how anyone could miss that. I also don't see how anyone could miss that it was my Viking blood that destroyed Rome long before Pr's had had enough of Rome's nonsense. So again, let's not go there, ok?

Referring to error that arose long after 600 AD as something other than "heresy" in no way implies the error is unimportant; it's just a way of keeping peace.

 

[razeontherock]

Well it is important to establish the basics

You raised a good subject for a thread: modernism vs Orthodoxy

I'd be interested in your specific definitions. Why do I fear it would just be the RC catechism?

 

[razeontherock]

But if you mean the central focus and purpose of Catholic worship, it is not the sermon. Preaching is talking amongst ourselves, it is teaching and exhortations, yes, but it is not worship? Do you consider sermons to be worship?

Actually my statement was tongue in cheek, and exaggerating to make a point. I merely used your statements that the sermon was chronologically in the middle, and taught against Pr-ism, to try to re-focus the thread on misconceptions about Pr. Or at least to point out how they might originate ...

I had always considered the sermon to be the center of a worship Service, and often to be the high point of worship. This may be peculiar to me, as it serves a "balancing effect" re: my service as a musician. Or it may reflect at least as much the amount of my relationship with our Lord that is Word-focused, which has ALWAYS been my greatest reality, even as I learned to read.

One of the benefits to me of interacting w/ those of other denoms on CF, has been to consider that others hold the elements to be the center of worship. If there's any value to traditions w/ no Scripture, IMHO at the very top of the list would be what Jesus Himself taught the Disciples post-resurrection and pre-Ascension. Does RC hold He went into great detail re: Communion then? Do you have any writings on the subject of anything He taught during those 40 days?

 

[razeontherock]

Tis a battle between David[Refomers] and Goliath [RCC].
My bet is with David [the Reformers]

http://www.christianforums.com/t2562238/
Was God behind the Reformation?

That's adorable! But how can you think the black cat has a chance?

 

[razeontherock]

That's a poor comparison, David actually killed Goliath, all the Reformers managed was the splintering of Western Christendom into countless tiny pieces.

Says the young man that's never heard of the 30 year's war? Again, let's not go there ok?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

How do you see the Sacraments as separate from "God's faithfulness", as you put it. Sacraments are "outward signs instituted by Christ to give grace." (Baltimore Catechism).

You seem to have a different definition of "sacrament" to be able to separate these things.

I don't . it was just the way you related it that made it sound separate .

 

[MKJ]

The EO were dabbling in indulgences too

Indulgences in the history of the Greek Church / Ïðàâîñëàâèå.Ru

"In the 16th—18th centuries the Greek Church, even though limited in its contacts with the outer world to the borders of the Ottoman Empire, came under a great influence of Western Christianity—greater than did the Russian Church. Here Catholic propaganda worked more effectively, especially with the foundation in 1622 of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda of the Faith, for both Greek scholars and theologians had increasing contacts with the West and most of them studied there. These and other factors led to the Greek Church in great part undergoing a Western metamorphosis, according to the expression of Father George Florowsky.

One of the manifestations of such a metamorphosis was the introduction of the sale of Christian indulgences into the practice of the Greek Church"

That was a pretty limited practise. It was not ever accepted by the Orthodox Church as a whole, or really even a large part of it, or for any length of time. Every group has these kinds of little abberations which are unfortunate, but don't speak so much to the actual beliefs of the group as to the limitations of the people within them.

To use an extreme example, I would not use the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church to criticize Baptists, or Calvinists, or even Protestantism in general.

 

[MKJ]

Your pretense that being religious is somehow a positive thing is both odious and tedious. You could start your own thread for that ...

You've already noted that his definition of religious is different from yours. By that definition, it would be difficult to argue that it was a negative thing. Why then not take the comments in that light? It seems not only odious and tedious, but dishonest to take him to be meaning something you know he doesn't intend.

 

[MKJ]

Not real good with context, are ya?

To say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which IS the name of Jesus" doesn't make any sense from a language perspective. If anything, it's some weird heresy saying that Jesus encompasses the Trinity. I am not sure how the context could make that readable. If you replaced "which is" with "and in" it would make sense, though still be Biblically and historically unjustified.

Hey you're the history major, not me. I'm pretty sure any reasonable and decent application for the word "heresy" was long concluded well before 600 AD. I just rounded up The same errors refuted by that time as "heresy" that surface today, could be referred to along those lines in civil and loving fashion. Trying to do that for anything that's come up since then? Simply NOT POSSIBLE. When you do, you conjure up the image of a crazed lunatic that would just SO love to go on a spree of torture, maiming and killing.

So you are saying that no disagreements within Christianity after the early period count as heresy? This seems quite abitrary, and not really in line with how the people in the early period understood the word. It also seems improbable given that the early heresies are all present within modern Christian contexts. As an example, if modalism was heresy then, wouldn't it also be heresy now? Modalism is pretty common among modern Christians. Or the denial of the divinity of Christ, also common in modern Christianity?

Referring to error that arose long after 600 AD as something other than "heresy" in no way implies the error is unimportant; it's just a way of keeping peace.

That is a different argument, and I think has some merit. Unfortunately it also has a negative side - it can make people think that the errors are really unimportant, all just fine as ways of thinking about God, all just different, valid opinions. So denying the Resurrection is just one way of being a Christian, you know? It's not like it is a heresy.

 

[razeontherock]

You've already noted that his definition of religious is different from yours. By that definition, it would be difficult to argue that it was a negative thing. Why then not take the comments in that light? It seems not only odious and tedious, but dishonest to take him to be meaning something you know he doesn't intend.

I don't "take him to mean" anything at all, other than to intentionally and repeatedly disrespect the purpose of the thread. Further, I knew good and well what he meant by the usage of the word "religion" the first time he used it, which I fully expect Lively Stone did not. Laconic Student and I have seen one another in the same threads, ever since my join date.

Moreover, Laconic Student could and SHOULD know perfectly well how religion is being used in this thread, by Pr's. So my point stands, that in a thread designed to remove misconception, he belligerently clings to misconception.

 

[razeontherock]

To say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which IS the name of Jesus" doesn't make any sense from a language perspective. If anything, it's some weird heresy saying that Jesus encompasses the Trinity.

Then this is heretical:

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

And apparently it's unjustifiable, both by history and Scripture, according to you.

So you are saying that no disagreements within Christianity after the early period count as heresy?

Nope. There's no possible way to twist that out of what I wrote. You had to make up that all by yourself.

This seems quite abitrary, and not really in line with how the people in the early period understood the word.

And this IS in line with what I wrote! They used it, to specify specific things. Stick to that, in modern application of those very same things, and you don't paint yourself as a crazed lunatic hell-bent on torturing, maiming and killing devout believers. Which is essentially how the word was used!

Again - LET'S NOT GO THERE, OK??! How can there possibly remain a misconception on that point?

It also seems improbable given that the early heresies are all present within modern Christian contexts.

Which, yet again, has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what I wrote.

Modalism is pretty common among modern Christians. Or the denial of the divinity of Christ, also common in modern Christianity?

Ok simple: modalism was declared a heresy before 600 AD? Point it out in your own words, in modern context, and I personally can't take issue with someone needing to label it "heresy." Even though you still make my skin crawl.

But do tell, how in the world do you have the crazed notion the the denial of the Divinity of Christ is common in modern Christianity? You're describing a cult.

That is a different argument, and I think has some merit. Unfortunately it also has a negative side - it can make people think that the errors are really unimportant, all just fine as ways of thinking about God, all just different, valid opinions. So denying the Resurrection is just one way of being a Christian, you know? It's not like it is a heresy.

So what you are saying is you disrespect my need and my humanity. Such Christian behavior! No, your broad brushtroke here is as phony as a 3 dollar bill. Either that or your vocabulary only contains one word. Which again would paint you as a crazed lunatic hell-bent on torturing, maiming and killing devout believers. Do you really expect me to believe you can't see anything unhealthy in your assertion here? Or do you somehow conveniently forget people actually poured molten lead into living people's veins, hoping to "purge them of their sin?"

LET'S NOT GO THERE, OK?

 

[MKJ]

Then this is heretical:

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

No. You can say each of the persons are fully God, but not that each person contains the other two. The Athanasian Creed is very good on this topic, which can certainly be confusing.

And apparently it's unjustifiable, both by history and Scripture, according to you.

plus history and Scripture.

Nope. There's no possible way to twist that out of what I wrote. You had to make up that all by yourself.

I don't think so, so either I'm evil, or you are less clear than you thought.

And this IS in line with what I wrote! They used it, to specify specific things. Stick to that, in modern application of those very same things, and you don't paint yourself as a crazed lunatic hell-bent on torturing, maiming and killing devout believers. Which is essentially how the word was used!

Again - LET'S NOT GO THERE, OK??! How can there possibly remain a misconception on that point?

Not all claims of heresy involved the kind of nasty actions you are talking about. But they did not say "these three things are heresies, and nothing else is". Heresy simply applies to a certain type of mistake, including potentially ones that no one has thought up yet.

Ok simple: modalism was declared a heresy before 600 AD? Point it out in your own words, in modern context, and I personally can't take issue with someone needing to label it "heresy." Even though you still make my skin crawl.

But do tell, how in the world do you have the crazed notion the the denial of the Divinity of Christ is common in modern Christianity? You're describing a cult.

Modalism goes by a number of different names, because historically it has appeared numerous times. But yes, it appeared well before 600 and was condemned.

The denial of the divinity of Christ is very common among what might loosely be described as "liberal Christians." So you see a lot of it in some Anglican communities - I had a Bishop who argued that the Resurrection was metaphorical - or the moderator of the United Church of Canada a number of years ago subscribed to the idea that Jesus was just a really good guy. It is a large popular group, by no means a cult.

Actually, almost all of the early classic heretical movements have modern equivalents.

So what you are saying is you disrespect my need and my humanity. Such Christian behavior! No, your broad brushtroke here is as phony as a 3 dollar bill. Either that or your vocabulary only contains one word. Which again would paint you as a crazed lunatic hell-bent on torturing, maiming and killing devout believers. Do you really expect me to believe you can't see anything unhealthy in your assertion here? Or do you somehow conveniently forget people actually poured molten lead into living people's veins, hoping to "purge them of their sin?"

LET'S NOT GO THERE, OK?

I'm not sure what you are going on about. I don't tend to label people heretics, but I have no problem labeling ideas as heretical based on what the Church has said - and some devout, influential, and important Christians have had some heretical ideas. Origen had heretical ideas without being a heretic in the proper sense. Eriugena, one of my favorite Christian authors, had some heretical ideas without being a heretic.

Given that in another thread you were talking about Protestants kicking Catholic butt and the predations of your Viking ancestors, I have trouble taking your scruples really seriously. I also notice that you have in no way addressed the problem of failing to use clear language about heretical (or whatever word you would substitute that means heretical) ideas.

 

[Heavens]

To say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which IS the name of Jesus" doesn't make any sense from a language perspective.

Ok, I'll bite. From your "language perspective" what IS the name of Father/Son/Holy Spirit if not "Jesus"??

(Act 2:38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.